Tavistock puberty blocker study published

If they only pick children who are 'truly trans' (whatever that might mean), then they will all go on to CSH, so PBs aren't a pause, but the first step in the treatment, so consent for CSH needs to be obtained at the same time as consent for PBs.

It seems more likely from the evidence that most children desist as they go through puberty that PBs are actually making children persist in their GD. So it's more likely that they are making trans adults out of children who would naturally desist. Or to put it another way, they are making sterile and sexually dysfunctional adults out of perfectly normal, physically healthy children.

The other thing that is making me so uncomfortable with this whole thing is that this is all about children who clearly have serious mental health issues and are very vulnerable. And it's like they are being used as pawns just in the name of ideology.

Look at this from Owen Jones. OJ knows fuck all about child psychology or child development, he is way out of his league wading into this, and he is only doing so as he is desperate to be seen as the greatest of trans allies and to be on the 'right side of history'. He appears to have absolutely no idea about the complexities of this issue.

Also good to see he has got Shon 'enjoy ur erasure' Faye on board as well

The "autistic traits" bit might be why there was the statement in court; the yp weren't diagnosed. Certainly I've seen diagnosis occur after going to the Tavistock.

It takes a lot of brain power to understand this. Tras are crowing that it proves it's all great. So, Doubtful.

Especially as there's bullying alluded to by patient advocate groups.

From June 2015 board meeting

Being trans, and undergoing medical transition, seems more akin to being treated for cancer

Yes the line seems to now be that 'well, we were right all along and all the children that were chosen for blockers were truly trans'.

But if, as they also say, puberty blockers were really 'just a pause' to give children time to think, wouldn't it make sense that there would be a statistically significant number of children who come off puberty blockers and do not go onto cross sex hormones? Who did just have that 'pause'?

Wow - there is a lot of info in this thread but it seems like the whole thing is a complete mess. Will 2021 be the year when the wheels come off? I think it needs a good journalist to get pull together all the info and expose the rot that has crept in at GIDS.

It's very surprising that GIDS suddenly felt able to release this preprint of the study a couple of weeks after the court case given they weren't prepared to submit it as evidence.

I have to say, I am horrified, fascinated and totally confused by this whole thing all at the same time.

But one thing I just keep thinking over and over again, as I read about kids going to clinics, children storing gametes, stopping normally developing puberties etc is:

How the fuck can anyone say that being trans is just like being gay?

So basically it says what many women have been banned or harassed on twitter fir saying?

That there are high levels of autism

And its not a pause button but the first step into medical transition.

Blockers don't actually make them feel any better.

They have no idea if the kids are any better when on CSH as there's no follow up.

And its seriously being spun as a positive because it means they picked all the right kids.

Even though keira is living proof that they don't.

Good god...

Ah ok, so the last one to exit must’ve been recruited before tanner stage 2 puberty was reached, so didn’t actually being the drugs until 2015.

The cohort consisted of 44 sequentially eligible young people, aged 12 to 15 years, who were recruited between April 2011 and April 2014 and who commenced GnRHa treatment between June 2011 and April 2015

Participants were followed up in the endocrine clinic, 3-6 monthly in the first 18 months and 12-monthly thereafter, till the end of the treatment pathway, defined as the date on or after the 16th birthday when a decision was made to either cease GnRHa or start cross-sex hormones. The final participant completed the pathway in February 2019.

Sample sizes necessarily varied across follow-up as young people were recruited at different ages but left the study soon after their 16th birthday. All 44 participants had data at 12 months follow-up, with 24 left at 24 months, 14 at 36 months and 4 at 48 months. In view of this, outcome reporting was restricted to change from baseline to 12, 24 and 36 months.

*invited

@PlantMam I've been I bites to a lot of slack boards lately for GC stuff

Any statement on this from Mermaids yet?

@umbel

I assume if they has ever assessed anyone as being appropriate to prescribe PBS to, but unable to give consent as not Gillick competent, they might have actually had a control group.

They recruited from families who had seen leaflets and actively applied for the study, so presumably they had other families on their caseload who didn’t apply and might’ve been willing to be a control.

I’m losing track on what I read where. Need a more organised approach to go through all the board meeting minutes and store relevant screenshots.
Any thoughts on a collaborative website where we could do that and then link back to here? Don’t want to spend hours looking at these dry arse meeting minutes only to find the thread disappeared!

Too many cases have seen systemic failures of care unaddressed because staff were not willing and able to raise concerns, leading to patients’ harm and sometimes death. Good whistleblowing policy and practice are fundamental to providing good, safe care..

I really hope they are talking about whistleblowing in general and not deaths related to the Tavistock’s patients. I think the teenager that committed suicide was obtaining their own hormones possibly from Spain and the 14 year old in Scotland was presumably under their GIDS service?

Thanks for that clarification Plant - I guess it creates a bit of an unusual situation in that these kids go straight from one treatment to the next and although the Tavistock claims otherwise, they are so closely linked so the almost inevitable progression obscures the results of the first study.
Then let’s hope the Tavistock is gathering data in order to study the effectiveness of that ‘transition’ from pbs to csh. I wonder when their next study will take place?

The court asked for statistics on the number or proportion of young people referred by GIDS for PBs who had a diagnosis of ASD. Ms Morris said that such data was not available

I may be misreading, but it sounds as if the court asked about children with a diagnosis of ASD. The paper only assesses ASD traits

They all end at different times, with the final one exiting the study in 2019 (so spent approx 5 years on blockers?)
Seeing as it’s taken a lot of drama to get this bit published, the likelihood of follow up data seems pretty small.

I noticed a year or so ago that one of the parent-of-trans-kids activists was trying to find some of the study participants but I don’t think he was successful.

I will look through some of the board meeting minutes later to see if I can find anything relevant. Looks like loads of ‘audits’ of patient info have been promised. Wonder how many of them have been completed?

The study didn’t bother to follow the next bit of their clinical progress, because it was only ever intended to look at blockers in the short term.

For a treatment pathway which has implications for the remainder of a patient's life, this seems to be an incredibly blinkered view.

I assume if they has ever assessed anyone as being appropriate to prescribe PBS to, but unable to give consent as not Gillick competent, they might have actually had a control group.

Plantman is there anything on what happened next?

Did Ms Morris lie to the court?

🤔

It is concerning that there appears to be no data re what happened to these patients that ‘dropped off’. Surely they didn’t just disappear?

They didn’t disappear, they turned 16, came off GnRHa drugs and 43/44 started cross sex hormones. The study didn’t bother to follow the next bit of their clinical progress, because it was only ever intended to look at blockers in the short term.

Sorry if it's been asked but Keira was there during this time; is her case included? And the outcome?

Keira would’ve been on GIDs ‘Standard’ pathway whereas the study is on the ‘Early Intervention’ pathway (ie, the study is on kids who were referred for blockers between 12 and 15 and taken off them at 16. Keira was prescribed them at 16. Perhaps if she had been referred by GP to GIDs a year earlier she would’ve qualified for the early intervention study, dependent on other criteria).